SWA yes vote:

[Sy-bill]

Wrong. We have a holding company side letter that applies not only any holding company, but also to holding companies of holding companies. You could have 20 layers of holding companies, and it would still be binding. It was written specifically to prevent the sort of end-run that you're contemplating. Not that I think SWA management has any intent of doing such a ridiculous thing, anyway.

Sorry Charlie. Won't hold up in court. And the lawyers who drafted that clause know that. A contract can not hold the entire company hostage. It has proven time and time again that contracts can be broken if the needs of the company out weigh the needs of the sub-group.

Does it also say that the purchasing company can not sell or dissolve its interests in said company? If SWA wanted to, it could bankrupt the carrier (Eastern Airlines) and transfer its assets to another company it operates. (Continental).

This is a nasty business but a little look back on history tells what can really happen. Don't fool yourself otherwise. Your 18 month clause is mainly there to protect you if YOUR company purchases another. That is what Scope is all about. Not if you are going out of business and someone is picking up the spare parts.

 

[Ty Webb]

Sorry Charlie. Won't hold up in court.

OK, Marcia Clark. :laugh:

I'll take the opinion of the seasoned M&A attorneys who wrote it, thanks.

Your 18 month clause is mainly there to protect you if YOUR company purchases another. That is what Scope is all about.

Uh, no, that's not the case. Have you read our Section 1 language and side letters? If yes, you don't understand what you read; if no, why are you bothering to comment on something you haven't read? :erm:

 

[madjack]

Ty "keepin it real" Webb, why don't you enlighten him...chief

 

[Ty Webb]

Ty "keepin it real" Webb, why don't you enlighten him...chief

There is no point in arguing about it . . . you don't even have to read any farther than the Section Headings to know that he has never read the document he is commenting on.

 

[SWA/FO]

Of course Southwest *COULD* operate us separately, but only for a defined period of time, then it gets REALLY messy, and that's not the bad part. The bad part is that it costs in the neighborhood of $200 million a year (over $250k a DAY) to operate us separately with our corporate overhead that's necessary to do so.

Gary saves 1,000,000,000 a year by hiring of the street.

 

[greenpilot]

Gary saves 1,000,000,000 a year by hiring of the street.

I guess that would mean he would save 4,000,000,000 a year if he got rid of all the SWA pilots and hired off the street.
How about we be realistic and quit with all the baseless threats.

 

[PCL_128]

Sorry Charlie. Won't hold up in court. And the lawyers who drafted that clause know that. A contract can not hold the entire company hostage. It has proven time and time again that contracts can be broken if the needs of the company out weigh the needs of the sub-group.

Yes, I guess we should have come to you when writing our scope language instead of the foremost scope attorney in the country who was writing scope language when all of us were in diapers. Not only does he say the language will hold up, but his language has already held up repeatedly in court and arbitration when companies have tried to get around it. Sorry.

 

[Lear70]

I guess that would mean he would save 4,000,000,000 a year if he got rid of all the SWA pilots and hired off the street.
How about we be realistic and quit with all the baseless threats.

+1

Way past ridiculous with that one...

 

[SWA/FO]

I guess that would mean he would save 4,000,000,000 a year if he got rid of all the SWA pilots and hired off the street.
How about we be realistic and quit with all the baseless threats.

No threat, just a fact. Sorry you don't like facts. Will he do it? Who knows.

 

[redflyer65]

and quit with all the baseless threats.

I'd have to agree that it, is what it is. No threat, just the reality of this business decision of Gary's.

 

[madjack]

No point in threats...so AAI guys stop "threatening" us with arbitration BS like no arbitrator has ever taken a seat from a CP or that a superior contract has no bearing...I have faith that the neutral judges will do what is fair and equitable for the SWA pilots and AAI pilots will NOT GET ALL THE GAINS OUT OF THIS ACQUISITION.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Oh, and PCL, I'm still waiting for the reference of where Section VII (b) is no longer valid.

Still waiting for the answer to this, PCL. I'm thinking the smart faux-lawyer has none.

 

[funnyman12]

You guys have to stop the fighting....I think the SW pilots will find that in the end us Airtran guys are/were never trying to hurt a SW pilot. Our MC will address most if not all of SWAPA's concerns. There are infinite ways to protect the SW pilot group and at the same time provide us AAI pilots with a fair SLI. I trust my MC and know they are a great group of guys that want the best for BOTH groups. Take a shot and relax!

 

[Flycatcher99]

You guys have to stop the fighting....I think the SW pilots will find that in the end us Airtran guys are/were never trying to hurt a SW pilot. Our MC will address most if not all of SWAPA's concerns. There are infinite ways to protect the SW pilot group and at the same time provide us AAI pilots with a fair SLI. I trust my MC and know they are a great group of guys that want the best for BOTH groups. Take a shot and relax!

Not sure if you're speaking in reference to my post, but I for one am not fighting. PCL made a legal statement that didn't appear to hold water. I'm asking for him to provide a source. That's all.

I agree that terse words serve no one, but a good discussion is enjoyable and occasionally informative.

 

[funnyman12]

Im referring to many FI posters since 9/27.....I do like constructive conversation but some of these posts are darn nasty.

 

[carl p]

I think this one statement pretty much sums up what alot of Southwest guys see on this form. Give me mine, and here's a kick in the sack for good measure. (Not everyone, but most)

Come on bro, most....really??? Maybe 10-15 AT pilots even post on this forum, and of that maybe 4-5 get into heated exchanges with 4-5 SWA guys and a few trolls. I'm telling you straight up that AT pilots are reasonable people and look forward to working with our future co-workers.

 

[PCL_128]

Still waiting for the answer to this, PCL. I'm thinking the smart faux-lawyer has none.

It really doesn't take any sort of fancy legal talk on this one. It's just plain English language. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you.

 

[SWA/FO]

PLC we don't want you at Southwest. You are not welcome. Quit now. You will now have to fly for a living. I am fearful, our Customers will pay the price. Go somewhere else. We don't want you. You stay classy and leave.

Please resign, you "never, really wanted to work at Southwest anyway" - good luck with your next career move.

 

[PCL_128]

PLC we don't want you at Southwest. You are not welcome. Quit now. You will now have to fly for a living. I am fearful, our Customers will pay the price. Go somewhere else. We don't want you. You stay classy and leave.

Please resign, you "never, really wanted to work at Southwest anyway" - good luck with your next career move.

Quit? And never get the joyous opportunity to fly with the famous SWA/FO? Never!

 

[SWA/FO]

I'm not flying the 717, so No we wont be flying together. I just read that package you ladies have your panties in a wad over. It was nothing. Lots of info.

Grow a pair, Ty. You are sorry just like your little Brother PLC. Not Southwest material at all.